1 / 14

Writing for Scholarship in Science Education: Conceptual and Methodological Issues Dana L. Zeidler

Writing for Scholarship in Science Education: Conceptual and Methodological Issues Dana L. Zeidler. President Isaac Sharpless, Haverford College Commencement, 1888.

lavina
Download Presentation

Writing for Scholarship in Science Education: Conceptual and Methodological Issues Dana L. Zeidler

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Writing for Scholarship in Science Education: Conceptual and Methodological Issues Dana L. Zeidler

  2. President Isaac Sharpless, Haverford CollegeCommencement, 1888 “I suggest that you preach truth and do righteousness as you have been taught, whereinsoever that teaching may commend itself to your consciences and your judgments. For your consciences and your judgments we have not sought to bind; and see you to it that no other institution, no political party, no social circle, no religious organization, no pet ambitions put such chains on you as would tempt you to sacrifice one iota of the moral freedom of your consciences or the intellectual freedom of your judgments.”

  3. Don’t put the cart before the horse! • Conceptual Clarity of Research Questions • Comprehensive and Deep Knowledge of the Research Literature: Emic/Proximal: Science Education Etic/Distal: Other Disciplines

  4. Scholarship Comes in Many Forms • Empirical (Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods) • Analytic Reviews / Synthesis • Theoretical • Philosophy – Conceptual Analyses Have you hit the mark? Caveat: Combining methodological approaches may not give deeper insight or understanding without attention to cumulative assumptions, inferences, threats.

  5. Evaluation Criteria for Research “The devil is in the details!”

  6. Title Specificity of Topic: Does the title provide the reader with a valid label of its content? Specificity of Purpose: Does the title reflect the purpose of the investigation / article? Congruence with Central Is there consistency with with research questions:the main research questions?

  7. Purpose / Statement of the Problem Cogency: Does the purpose make clear the intent/focus of the investigation? Control of Design: Does the purpose provide for linkage with procedures and methods? Amenability to testing, Does the purpose eventuate in the exploration, verification: formation of question to be tested? Relevance of Knowledge: Does the central problem have relevance to a larger body of theory?

  8. Significance of Study Conceptual Clarity: Is there justification for the study? Is there evidence of need? Genesis of the Problem: Have the factors that have given rise to the problem been examined? Contribution to Theory: Does the promise to extend / refine existing knowledge? Contribution to Practice: What pedagogical impact is suggested by the study?

  9. Review of the Literature / Theoretical Framework Introduction: Does the intro provide the purpose of the review and its topical organization? Criteria for selecting Does the review illustrate the literature:historical nature of the problem and provide a context for your study? Delimitations? Congruence of design/Does the review indicate how study methodology:will modify, improve, extend past research and inform related methods?Organization/Summary Is review organized around major and minor headings to provide form and shape discussion? Concluding section present?

  10. Design and Methodology Population / Do the data sources show promise Sample selection:yielding the data required? Adequacy of sample size: Is sample size adequate to minimize inferential error? Instrumentation: Are instruments to be used described in detail? Have considerations been given to validity and reliability? Rationale for conceptual clarity?

  11. Design and Methodology (cont’d.) Clarity of Methods: Are procedures fully articulated? Are treatments adequately described? Is collection of data adequate? Is training of individuals (data collectors and those implementing a treatment) appropriate? Analysis of Data: Is choice of statistical techniques described? Are taxonomical constructions described.

  12. Design and Methodology (cont’d.) Additional Concerns (where appropriate): • How do you know the treatment is what it is supposed to be? • Experimenter versus Investigator roles and issues. • Quantitative Investigations • Qualitative Investigations • Mixed Methods • Conceptual Papers Model Cases Contrary (counter) Cases Borderline Cases Invented Cases

  13. Findings, Conclusions, Discussion, Implications Additional Concerns (where appropriate): • Do data tables/figures add to understanding? • Is appropriate data reported? • Do empirical assertions or categories, interpretive commentary have backing by the data? • Are outliers or discrepant cases discussed? • Is there a high degree of instantiation (e.g., validity, reliability, credibility, trustworthiness)? • Is the discussion congruent with the theoretical framework discussed earlier? Support? Deviations? Challenges? Anomalies? • Do the findings connect to research, practice, policy, etc.?

  14. Questions ?

More Related